Further to my letter dated 10 September 2010,
I again refer to your report on the handling of my complaints by Strathclyde
Police dated August 2010 and your letter dated 8 September 2010.

A significant falsehood in your report has
been highlighted in press reports today. That falsehood is reproduced below:

‘During the period 2001 to 2009 the applicant
has written some 82 letters to Strathclyde Police in which he makes both
criminal and non criminal complaints about the police.’

I have most certainly written nothing like 82
letters of complaint against Strathclyde Police. Have Strathclyde Police taken
time to respond to 82 complaints from me? Absolutely not.

You cannot possibly produce 82 letters of
complaint from me against Strathclyde Police because that grossly exaggerated number
is simply a calumnious fabrication.

As can very easily be verified I submitted only
two application forms to the PCCS for review and these were in respect of only two
complaints against Strathclyde Police. The following statement in your report
is a blatant distortion of the truth:

‘In all, the applicant has asked the
Commissioner to review 12 complaints.’

The first application form was submitted to
the PCCS on 17 November 2008 and the second on 21 June 2010.

The exact texts of the sections in these
forms containing details of the matters I submitted for review by the PCCS are
replicated below:

17
November 2008

’WHY STRATHCLYDE POLICE DID NOT ASK ANOTHER FORCE TO INVESTIGATE ALLEGED FAILURES,
IN THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES.’

‘STRATHCLYDE POLICE’S STATEMENT THAT ALL THE
EVIDENTIAL FACTORS I IDENTIFIED WERE KNOWN TO THE POLICE IN 1994’

21 June
2010

‘A DELAY OF 10 MONTHS IN RESPONDING TO MY
LETTERS’

‘FALSE STATEMENTS ABOUT THE 1993
INVESTIGATION’

‘FALSE STATEMENTS ABOUT THE 2004
INVESTIGATION’

‘FALSE STATEMENTS ABOUT THE 2008 INVESTIGATION’

These details related to only two specific
complaints that I had submitted earlier to Strathclyde Police and in response
to which I had received two corresponding letters from Strathclyde Police, one
dated 19 September 2008 and one dated 11 June 2010.

You knew therefore that I had actually asked
the PCCS to review only two formal complaints that had been submitted to
Strathclyde Police.

The PCCS wrote to me on 23 June 2010, almost
two years after I had submitted my first application form, including the
following statement in respect of the PCCS’s identification of ten heads of
complaint:

‘I have (sic)
an initial examination of the papers in your case and have identified what I
believe to be your grounds of complaint.’

These grounds of complaint would of course
have to have been identified in relation to the two complaints that I submitted
for review.

On 11 August 2010 the PCCS wrote to me
including the following statement in respect of the PCCS’s own suggested addition
of two heads of complaint:

‘I refer to your complaints about Strathclyde
Police and write to inform you that the following grounds of complaint (known
as ‘’heads of complaint’’) have (sic)
identified in addition to those communicated to you in my letter of 3 June
2010.’

Subsequently, however, this total of twelve heads
of complaint identified by the PCCS in respect of the two formal complaints against
Strathclyde Police that were submitted to the PCCS for review was misrepresented
in your report in the following terms:

‘In all, the applicant has asked the
Commissioner to review 12 complaints.’

This is a direct falsehood that can easily be
verified with reference to the two application forms I submitted to the PCCS.

A reasonable suspicion arises that you have
tried to undermine my credibility by promulgating these derogatory falsehoods
about me.

In particular, you have given the false
impression that I have wasted public resources thereby, which is of course very
damaging to my professional reputation.

Your recommendation to Strathclyde Police
appears to be largely predicated upon these falsehoods and in that regard Chief
Superintendent John Pollok is quoted in the Scotsman today in the following
terms:

‘The decision to restrict this member of the
public’s access to the complaints process was taken reluctantly and was based
on the need to concentrate scarce police resources to the investigation to bona
fide complaints. We welcome the PCC’s findings.’

Which of my two complaints was not bona fide?
I would most definitely not waste time on presenting any spurious complaints
and your report contains no specific reference to any such non bona fide
complaint. This is just another defamatory allegation against me that you are
responsible for perpetrating.

Your report has not identified any specific complaint
as not bona fide yet you have recommended that Strathclyde Police should
restrict my access to the complaints process. Why? This is manifestly
incongruous. You have taken this adverse decision against me with absolutely no
justification that accords with the facts or with the reasoning in your report
relative to the twelve heads of complaint.

In your Summary and Key Findings you include
the following statement:

‘The Commissioner has found that with the
exception of one, all of these complaints were dealt with reasonably by
Strathclyde Police.’

But there were only two complaints against
Strathclyde Police submitted to the PCCS for review, not 12.

The only apparent basis in your report for
making the recommendation that Strathclyde Police should ignore future related
complaints from me is your own fabrication about a fictitious 82 letters of
complaint and your misrepresentation of the 12 heads of complaint in respect of
the two police complaints, falsely pretending that these were 12 separate
police complaints.

You were supposed to be focusing on twelve heads
of complaint that the PCCS had identified from documentation relating only to the
two application forms that I submitted in respect of two police complaints.

These were not 12 separate complaints at all
but you have misrepresented them as 12 separate complaints. A further 70
unspecified so-called complaints have been referred to but given no detailed consideration
in your report whatsoever. In any event you had obtained no submission or agreement
from me on any such 82 complaints for review by the PCCS.

This is clearly a glaring deviation from your
standard procedure. What were the other 80 unspecified supposed complaints that
you have actually not considered in your report, (because in fact they don’t
exist), but which you have deviously attempted to blame me for raising?

I raised only 2 complaints against Strathclyde
Police for review by the PCCS, not 82. Your blatant lies on this point are
outrageous.

The following comments attributed to you in
the Scotsman yesterday are unfounded and absolutely disgraceful in the light of
your claim to be an ardent supporter of protecting the rights of individuals:

‘Substantial resources had been directed
towards trying to understand and resolve the various complaints over an
extended period of time.’

In reality Strathclyde Police produced
minimal, delayed, evasive and dishonest responses to my formal complaints and
the PCCS had a mandate to review only two complaints, with 12 heads of
complaint identified.

Having recognised in recent months that the
PCCS was processing inaccurate personal information about me I formally warned
the PCCS about that in a letter dated 26 June 2010 including the following relevant
points:

‘Unless the PCCS checks the important facts
that I have notified the PCCS to have been misstated and corrects them in
accordance with the available evidence any such processing would simply be
unlawful.’

‘Knowingly processing harmful falsehoods
about me could have very serious consequences.’

‘Firstly, any report that has been produced
without checking the facts would be worse than useless and the general public
would quickly come to despise any publicly funded organisation that attempted
to operate in that way, especially in these times of close scrutiny of all
public expenditure.’

‘Secondly, there would be grounds for legal
action to enforce the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998. Your stated
intentions towards me, effectively to continue to process inaccurate personal
information, directly breach those terms. The Information Commissioner has
already confirmed to me in writing that information in the context of my
complaints is regarded as personal information for the purposes of the Data
Protection Act 1998. Do you really think you can get away with blatantly
disregarding such clear statutory terms as those to which I have made
reference?’

‘Thirdly, any person who knowingly repeats
defamatory material about me would thereby be acting maliciously and would be
personally liable in a substantial claim for solatium in which there would not
be a requirement for any monetary loss to be proved, in which the onus of proof
that the defamatory statements are in fact true would be on the defender, and
in which the element of malice would preclude any defence of qualified
privilege.’

‘‘An individual is liable for his or her own
delicts, committed either personally or through the medium of another. To
instruct one’s employee to defame another is to commit the wrong oneself
(though the employee will be personally liable too). If more than one person
joins in the defamation each is personally liable for the whole loss to the
pursuer, for, notwithstanding that the defamation is committed by more than one
person, liability is individual and not joint and several.’’

‘At page 75 Norrie states:’

‘‘........ the best evidence of malice, and
the most conclusive, is proof that the defender knew the statement to be
false.’’

‘Fourthly, any professional who knowingly
misrepresents the law or important facts could be investigated for professional
misconduct.’

‘My letter dated 7 June 2010 covered two main
objectives, firstly to add points to my existing complaint about Strathclyde Police
and secondly to point out specific inaccuracies in personal data both
originating in the PCCS and as reported by others to the PCCS and held on your
files for processing.’

‘In that letter I formally notified you of my
concern that if such processing continues without the inaccuracies being
corrected this is likely to cause me unwarranted or substantial damage or
distress.’

‘You appear to want to disregard unlawfully
my right to object to such processing, which is of course a matter of very
grave concern.’

‘I did not merely dispute, without any
supporting evidence, the information that has been provided to you by others or
that you have produced. On the contrary I referred to detailed documentary
evidence to prove that in relation to my complaints several statements of fact,
statements of opinions about me and statements of intentions towards me, both
originating in the PCCS and as reported by others to the PCCS were false or
were based upon inaccurate personal data.’

‘According to the terms of the Data
Protection Act 1998 more care is required in particular to ensure that the more
important personal information is accurate and up to date. The PCCS cannot
lawfully just accept what is reported by others as accurate and up to date when
evidence has been provided indicating that the information in question is in
fact inaccurate or out of date, especially in respect of very important details
as in this case.’

On 26 June 2010 I wrote a second very
important letter to the PCCS in the following terms:

‘In support of points made in my letter to
you dated 13 June 2010 I enclose a copy of a letter dated 7 April 2005 from
HMIC to Strathclyde Police recently disclosed to me by the PCCS.’

‘That letter includes the following
significant statements:’

‘‘Mr Cairns’ suspicion of collusion between
the police and others appears largely founded on itemised entries on an account
from the solicitors Maclay, Murray and Spens.’’

‘‘.......... HMIC understands that Maclay,
Murray and Spens acknowledged, in a letter dated 8 July 2002 to Henessy, Bowie
and Co, that a copy of the police report had in fact been supplied to them.
HMIC recognises that the means by which the document had been provided was not
divulged. This information may, nevertheless, be considered to add substance to
Mr Cairns’ interpretation of the itemised account.’’

‘‘Could you please advise if any additional
enquiry into Mr Cairns’ complaint was instigated as a result of the force
receiving this new information and whether he was provided with an update in
relation to the possession of the police report by Maclay, Murray and
Spens..........’’

‘‘I can confirm that HMIC has been provided
with a copy memorandum dated 19 July 2002 from .......... to Chief Supt
......... concerning the issue and a note, apparently written by Chief
Superintendent ........ suggesting that no further action is to be taken.’’

‘The copy of the itemised account in question
confirms that the police report was supplied by Detective Sergeant William
Watters, the same person who is alleged to have conspired with employees of
Enterprise Ayrshire, Scottish Enterprise and others to pervert the course of
justice in this case.’

‘I have already indicated to you that a
reasonable suspicion arises that the police copy of this report was
deliberately destroyed unlawfully, during investigations into my police
complaints, and/or during live civil actions and/or ongoing criminal investigations
to which it had particular relevance, in order to conceal its obvious defects,
including the fact that it had actually been prepared by Scottish Enterprise
and was plainly rigged.’

As I stated in my letter to you dated 10
September 2010 in that regard:

‘In particular, your assertion that ‘At the
time the applicant made his complaint the police file relating to the
applicant’s original fraud allegation had been destroyed in accordance with the
Strathclyde Police’s document retention policy’ is not the whole truth.’

‘You knew when you made this statement that
the officer in charge of the original police investigation, DS William Watters,
had copied the police report to the Scottish Office and later to solicitors
Maclay Murray and Spens.’

‘You also knew when you wrote the statements
quoted above that I had obtained a copy of that police report in 2003 and had
immediately submitted it to Strathclyde Police along with several items of
documentary evidence highlighting its many serious failures.’

‘The copy that I obtained from the Scottish
Office had been sent by DS Watters to the Scottish Office along with a
compliments slip containing the words ‘With the Compliments of the Chief
Constable of Strathclyde Police’, signed ‘W. Watters D/S Fraud Squad’.’

‘Consequently, your assertions that ‘any
investigation into the independence of the investigating officers would have
been hampered by the destruction of the police file’ and that ’any enquiries
conducted in relation to this complaint would not have been likely to yield
reliable evidence’ are simply disingenuous.’

‘Why have you completely disregarded the
existence of this copy of the police report and all the evidence I submitted
exposing its inadequacies?’

Consequently, I have written initially to the
Information Commissioner in respect of these particularly damaging inaccuracies
in my personal data, held and processed by the PCCS.

Shortly, I intend following up on your
disgraceful unlawful conduct in accordance with the warnings quoted above.

In view of the very serious nature of the
above and its relevance to wider issues in this case I have copied this letter
to Strathclyde Police, to Scottish Enterprise, to the Scottish Government’s Ms
Stella Manzie, Director General Justice and Communities, to Audit Scotland, to
Mr Bob Doris MSP and to the Crown Office.

This is clearly a matter of public interest
that would tend to undermine the public’s confidence in the administration of
justice, justice not having been seen to be done.

This letter has
therefore been put into the public domain as is entirely appropriate in these
circumstances.

About Me

SCOTTISH ENTERPRISE
This story highlights the dangers involved in being a whistleblower. It relates how trying to resist instructions to falsify accounts in any establishment organisation, in this case Scottish Enterprise, can swiftly lead to unemployment, destruction of your professional reputation, homelessness and bankruptcy. In the longer term it can result in grinding poverty, social isolation, mental health problems, being falsely classified by the government as a persistent correspondent and a vexatious litigant. In my case I attained the dubious honour of being listed on the Court of Session website as the number one vexatious litigant in Scotland for 11 years so far (as at September 2016).
In reality however none of my cases was vexatious.